Are Feds offering pensions to new employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few feds already make obscene amounts of money--far more than the private sector. Nurse practitioners making well over 100K for example. I almost crapped when I saw that posting recently.

The average salary for a nurse practitioner in the DC area is about $97,000. Of course some of them make well North of that, fed or not.

[Anonymous]

I work in a hospital, and agre with PP. Nurse practitioners are well paid, and often make even more in private settings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As a taxpayer, I am 100% entitled - legally and philosophically - to know the structure of the benefits paid to public employees. My retirement is in great shape, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm going have to pay more than a fair share to make up the shortfall to pay your retirement.

As a taxpayer, I'm paying all the time to support private industry -- the auto bailout, the financial industry bailout, and support for insurance companies for Christ's sake. I don't get to know what those companies are paying their executives and employees until after I'm already footing the bill. I don't have to worry too much about pensions though, because private industry has generally dumped pensions. Instead, I have to worry about the obscene profit taking that, surprise surprise, also happens before the company is on the verge of failure and needs a bailout.

You say that the feds will be fine hiring without the meager defined benefit plan, but the reason the federal government is flooded with applications is precisely because the benefits and stability are pretty good even though the pay is not. The more you take those away, the more the government becomes like every other employer, but less desirable because of the pay. You will wind up with a less talented federal workforce, which will ultimately cost more in taxpayer dollars.

[Anonymous]

I would like to hear exactly which actuarial assumptions you are concerned about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to hear exactly which actuarial assumptions you are concerned about.

5.25% assumed interest income. Last I checked the yield on the 30 year treasury is 3.3%. If rates rise to get anywhere near the level to achieve this assumption, most likely it will be because inflation has risen well above the 3% assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few feds already make obscene amounts of money--far more than the private sector. Nurse practitioners making well over 100K for example. I almost crapped when I saw that posting recently.

Nah, this area isn't selling 600 and 700k homes to feds. There are a lot of leeches in the private sector making money off the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few feds already make obscene amounts of money--far more than the private sector. Nurse practitioners making well over 100K for example. I almost crapped when I saw that posting recently.

Nah, this area isn't selling 600 and 700k homes to feds. There are a lot of leeches in the private sector making money off the federal government.

My sister actually just bought a 600k home . She is a fed making 100k+, she "works" from home two days a week ( which means she goes to play dates/cleans her house). Her husband also works in the government at a similar salary, but with a "normal" 9-5. So I do think that the higher GS feds combined are buying the houses in that range.